Date of Decision: MAR. 1, 2016
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Engineer
Field: Control Theory and Dynamic Systems
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Participation as a Judge: The petitioner meets the participation as a judge criterion under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) by reviewing manuscripts and serving as a peer reviewer.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner meets the authorship of scholarly articles criterion under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) through the publication of scholarly articles and technical reports.
Criteria Not Met:
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner failed to show that his research had a significant impact on the field, questioning the level of significance of his contributions.
- Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards: The petitioner did not provide evidence of receiving significant awards akin to the Nobel Prize.
- Published Materials About the Petitioner: The petitioner did not demonstrate sufficient evidence of published materials that highlighted his work as exceptional or influential in the field.
Key Points from the Decision
- The petitioner’s work, while contributing to his field, has not reached a level of acclaim or recognition that aligns with the criteria for extraordinary ability as defined by USCIS.
- Despite the originality of his work, the overall impact and recognition in the field are not at the level required to meet the extraordinary ability category.
Supporting Documentation
- Research projects funded by U.S. government sources
- Publications in peer-reviewed journals
- Letters from peers and colleagues affirming the petitioner’s contribution to the field
Conclusion
Final Determination: The petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that he qualifies as an individual of extraordinary ability. The appeal is therefore dismissed, and the petition may not be approved.
Reasoning:
- The petitioner’s contributions, while valuable, do not meet the high standards required for classification as an individual with extraordinary ability. His impact on the field has not been substantial or widely recognized outside his immediate professional circle.
Next Steps:
- It is recommended that the petitioner gather more substantial evidence of broad recognition and significant impact in his field for any future filings.
